# Fumbled Justice Podcast | Ep5 - The Perjury

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FznuGoXjhpM

[00:00] Due to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations, video recording of inmates is strictly prohibited.
[00:08] Eric Neposki participates in every episode of Fumble Justice by phone from inside prison.
[00:13] Those conversations are real, unscripted, and entirely his own words.
[00:17] To make his participation visible on screen, we've used AI avatar technology to create a digital representation of Eric synchronized to his actual voice.
[00:27] What you see is a generated likeness.
[00:30] What you hear is Eric speaking for himself for the first time.
[00:40] [music]
[00:53] Welcome to this episode of Fumbled Justice.
[00:54] I'm your host, Paul Delpo.
[00:57] Every wrongful conviction has a moment where the story the jury heard and the
[01:01] Story that actually happened split apart.
[01:03] Sometimes it's one piece of evidence.
[01:06] Sometimes it's one witness.
[01:09] In this episode, it's three.
[01:09] [snorts]
[01:12] 15 years after William Mclofflin was murdered in his Baloa Cove home, this case was reopened.
[01:18] Not because of new forensic science, not because of a confession, but because of testimony.
[01:24] Testimony from three people who told a very different story in 2009 than they had told back in 1995.
[01:32] We're going to show you both versions side by side in their own words from the documents themselves.
[01:39] Because here's the thing about perjury.
[01:42] It's not a theory.
[01:42] It's not an opinion.
[01:44] It has a definition.
[01:46] Webster's dictionary defines perjury this way.
[01:48] The crime of telling a lie in a court of law after promising to tell the truth.
[01:56] Today, we're going to walk through three of the most important and we'd argue most misconstrued pieces of testimony this case has ever produced.
[02:04] Susan Kogar, a neighbor of Eric Nepossky's, David J. Vanir Jr., the manager of the Ace Hardware store and detective Tom Vaoth, the lead homicide detective on the case for the Newport Beach Police Department.
[02:20] Prosecutor Matt Murphy told the public on more than one occasion leading up to the trial that new evidence from witnesses would make it clear who pulled the trigger on William Mclofflin, that Eric Neposski was that man.
[02:34] What we're about to show you tells a very different story.
[02:37] A story of three witnesses who, whether coached, whether their memories were refreshed, or whether they simply said what they thought the case needed them to say, took the stand 15 years after the fact and offered testimony that didn't match what they said back when the case was still warm.
[02:57] And the documents that could have proven that, the 1995 memos, never made it in front of the jury.
[03:02] The defense never got to
[03:05] Use them.
[03:07] We will.
[03:09] Joining me as he always does from Ironwood Prison is my co-host, Eric Neposki.
[03:12] Eric, how are you today?
[03:15] Hey, Paul.
[03:15] Great to see you as always.
[03:17] Excited to do another episode of the Fumble Justice Podcast.
[03:22] Sounds good, Eric.
[03:22] We got a lot to get into, so let's get right to it.
[03:26] We have three major topics to discuss today that were key in your trial.
[03:33] So, I want to get right to it.
[03:35] And I think we should start with Susan Kogar because anybody who's watched the shows that were done on you like the 48 hours episodes, she was very vocal about things that she said that you said.
[03:52] So Matt Murphy was also very vocal about why he brought this case to trial 15 years later because of so-called new evidence.
[04:00] And he claims that Susan Kogar's testimony was in fact new evidence.
[04:04] So, let's get
[04:07] Into Susan first.
[04:10] Why don't you tell me what she said, when she said it, why did she call and the Newport Beach Police Department?
[04:18] Let's just I'll let you take it from here.
[04:20] So, I'm going to back up a little bit, Paul, and just tell you a little bit about me and uh Suzanne's relationship.
[04:26] Suzanne lived at the apartment complex that I lived at.
[04:28] We both had studio apartments.
[04:30] We both frequented the hot tub often and we became friends.
[04:35] We might even become friends with benefits.
[04:38] We had a good relationship.
[04:41] And uh once we went to the movies, we went to get some ice cream.
[04:44] It was just a nice casual relationship.
[04:48] One particular time when we were in the hot tub, she asked me why she hadn't seen the net and the kids around the apartment complex lately.
[04:55] They used to come over and go swimming and and hang out.
[04:59] And I told her, that was at night.
[05:01] I told her that it was because of the accusations Nanette was making against Bill, which we already talked about, and that I was
[05:09] Upset that Bill was still at the home, sharing the home that they lived in, even though she was telling me these accusations.
[05:16] So, me and Annette had broken up.
[05:19] So, obviously, Suzanne was paying attention to our schedule.
[05:22] So, when she asked me that question, I went into a little detail with her.
[05:27] So, she heard the beginnings of what ended up being uh the conversation that they heard in the courtroom, which was me and Annette are breaking up.
[05:34] We're having problems and the accusations against Bill.
[05:41] And this is very important because I'm not making this stuff up.
[05:43] According to Nette in her confession, that's exactly what she did.
[05:48] She fabricated stories about Bill sexually assaulting her in order to obviously enrage me and make me angry.
[05:56] So Suzanne is actually a great witness to that story and she's the only one.
[06:01] So she became a great witness at the beginning and then she started to talk about another conversation that we had back in 1995.
[06:09] After the murder.
[06:12] And let me tell you the reason she even had a conversation is the question that starts this whole thing off.
[06:20] In 1998, three years after the last time I saw Suzanne, she actually called into the police station.
[06:28] And the reason she gave was that she was getting hangup phone calls and she thought it might be me.
[06:33] Now, I don't know why she thought it might be me, but I'm going to read you the transcript and I'm going to tell you what she said.
[06:41] She said, "I had been getting hangup phone calls at my apartment and my paranoia, my mind was racing, and I thought, what if it would be Eric or someone related, you know, an acquaintance of Eric's?"
[06:54] And it got in my mind to thinking about the statement that he once told me.
[06:58] It started weighing heavily on my mind again.
[07:00] So, at that point, I said, "I'm going to call the police and make another attempt to call and make a statement."
[07:08] So Suzanne's whole reason for calling the
[07:11] Police in 1998, 3 years after the murder, was that she was getting hangup phone calls.
[07:19] Now, when asked about this later in trial on cross-examination, she said that she actually star 69 the person.
[07:28] And I'm going to read you what she said.
[07:31] At that time there was a star 69 feature that I used and I got part of the telephone number and then it was the person from work and just through word of mouth I found out who that woman was.
[07:42] How I found out that it was this woman but just through people talking at work I found out that's who it was.
[07:49] So obviously it wasn't me in 1998 uh doing hangup phone calls on Suzanne Koger.
[07:57] In 1998, I was in Barcelona getting married to my wife and being inducted to the Barcelona Dragon Hall of Fame.
[08:02] The last thing I was thinking about was Susan Koger that summer.
[08:05] So, but let's now get into some stuff that she said.
[08:11] Okay.
[08:11] The most important thing that kept being repeated at trial and
[08:15] Prior to trial by Matt Murphy was that I said maybe I did and maybe I didn't.
[08:21] When asked about the murder, I said to my attorneys, I never said maybe I did and maybe I didn't.
[08:29] So, what we did was we checked the history of her interview.
[08:33] And what we had was we had a document that had everything she said to the investigator during her interview.
[08:42] So, the investigator said, "The first thing I said was, 'I didn't do it.'"
[08:49] Which if you've known me over the last 17 years has been the only thing I've ever said.
[08:53] So she was corrected on the stand.
[08:57] She was corrected on the stand and this is what she said.
[09:00] I can't remember exactly what I told Detective O'Sullivan.
[09:02] I can't remember exactly how the conversation went between me and Eric.
[09:10] Do you remember the first thing you said or at least what you said to Detective O'Sullivan was the
[09:15] First thing that Neposki said was that he didn't do it.
[09:21] So really what we had to do was we had to correct the narrative once again.
[09:25] So the story about maybe I did and maybe I didn't was really not what I said when asked if I had anything to do with the murder.
[09:32] What I said was that I didn't do it.
[09:34] So, thank goodness the detectives takes very good notes or we would have had to go on her word.
[09:42] So, I'm not saying she was lying about it on purpose.
[09:46] I'm saying that when you have a trial 17 years later, your memory might not remember everything that was said and that was said in 1998.
[09:55] And of course, the trial was in 2011.
[09:58] So, that was the biggest thing that we had to tackle uh at that point was correcting that.
[10:04] Now, as far as saying maybe I did and maybe I did it, I don't think I ever said that because after I said I didn't do it, she asked me if Nette did it.
[10:15] When she asked me if Nette did it, that's when I
[10:17] Probably said maybe she did, maybe she didn't, or maybe she had someone do it.
[10:22] That makes sense to me.
[10:24] It doesn't make sense that I would give two contradictive statements to the same answer.
[10:28] If that makes sense to you.
[10:31] Why would I say I didn't do it and then go back and say maybe I did it, maybe I did it?
[10:35] It was the change in the conversation that I don't think Suzanne realized.
[10:39] So, in other words, she really did perjure herself by saying that was the first thing I said because it wasn't.
[10:44] It came up later in the conversation when she asked me about Nette and that was Suzanne's most of Suzanne's testimony and we had to straighten that out.
[10:54] You said that the detective took really good notes.
[10:56] Which detective are we talking about?
[10:58] This was the Newport Beach detective that was assigned to the case in 1998.
[11:05] When she gave her new statement, she gave it to Detective Va, who we're going to talk about later.
[11:11] My attorney, Gary Pollson, was literally reading the statement from the discovery.
[11:16] So, he had the discovery and
[11:19] He was reading her interview as he was asking her questions.
[11:24] So, the nice thing is as soon as she started to vary from that interview, we got to pull her back and we were able to show her the interview.
[11:32] And this is what she said.
[11:35] I see that's the statement I made.
[11:38] It's just hard to remember this long later exactly how the conversation went.
[11:43] Certain phrases stand out in my mind, but I wasn't sure exactly in what order.
[11:49] So, at that time, she's actually admitting that listen, we're 17 years down the road here, right?
[11:53] I heard what I heard in 95.
[11:56] I told them what I thought I heard in 98.
[11:58] And then now I'm trying to regurgitate it again.
[12:00] And her mind just isn't capturing everything she wants.
[12:04] And we straightened it out.
[12:08] And I think in the end her testimony is actually beneficial to me.
[12:10] It didn't really hurt me whatsoever.
[12:12] You always hear that attorneys never ask questions that they don't already know the answer to.
[12:18] And you also don't put
[12:21] Somebody on the stand that you think is going to basically get tied up in their own words.
[12:31] This doesn't sound like something Matt Murphy would have knowingly done.
[12:37] I mean, do you think he would have taken the chance to put her on the stand to say something so inflammatory only to be unraveled by your own attorneys?
[12:47] Boy, that's a great that's a great question.
[12:49] Maybe Ma Murphy didn't do his homework for this particular person and thought that her testimony was going to overpower what she said in 1998.
[13:00] But when you have a a detective taking notes about what a person is saying, but the person doesn't see them taking notes because it was a phone conversation.
[13:11] Due to the fact it was a phone conversation.
[13:12] I don't think she either knew it was being taped or being recorded on paper.
[13:17] We had the paper of everything that she said.
[13:19] So, as soon as she used that
[13:21] Comment during her direct examination with Mr. Murphy, you know, Gary Pollson was licking his lips because he had the actual statement that she said.
[13:31] Now, here's the difference, Paul.
[13:33] I'm not saying what she said or what she didn't say.
[13:35] Correct?
[13:37] I'm not correcting her statements.
[13:40] I am just paying attention to what she said to the investigator and she told the investigator that the first thing I said was I didn't do it, which is the same thing I've been saying for 17 years, 34 years if you go all the way back to 94.
[13:53] So that doesn't surprise me.
[13:55] What surprised me was the fact that she said maybe I did and maybe I didn't because I don't ever remember saying that.
[14:01] The only thing that that could relate to is thought when she asked me about Nette doing it and that's when I said maybe she did, maybe she didn't.
[14:08] I don't know.
[14:10] Maybe she had someone do it.
[14:12] That's more up the alley of what I kind of what I probably was talking about.
[14:15] But, uh, it was great knowing that Gary Pollson was on the ball and he had that information and he turned it all around.
[14:22] You know, I I can't, like I said before,
[14:24] I can't fault Gary for the conviction that came out at the end of this cuz he really put his heart and soul out there.
[14:31] It was Matt Murphy that lied on Gary Pollson and uh, and did that.
[14:36] So when when Matt doesn't get his way, this is how he handles it.
[14:40] So that was the majority of his uh her her conversation.
[14:44] Yes, there was a discussion about keys as well.
[14:53] And that leads us into the next person that took the stand, the Ace Hardware store manager, who is basically saying 15 years later that he does recall you making these keys, whereas in the very beginning years ago, it was a completely different story.
[15:10] So walk us through that.
[15:11] Yeah.
[15:15] And and ending on Koger's key key claim was she had said that I mentioned that the keys at the murder scene were made at a hardware store next to our
[15:25] Apartment complex which was probably just Ace Hardware store.
[15:28] Now the problem with this is we had already interviewed the guy at the hardware store.
[15:32] James Box already interviewed him.
[15:37] So when I heard that, I knew for a fact that the police were spreading the rumor that the keys were made, you know, at that time.
[15:47] And if you look at the Bailey letter, it actually has a section where Julian Bailey reprimands Da Lloyd that the police are spreading false information regarding things and he goes down and he mentions everything about the keys.
[16:04] So remember, James Box interviewed Mr. Vanir back in February of 1995, two months after the murder, but it was also about a month after the police interviewed him.
[16:20] So what it was, it was a followup.
[16:22] It was a follow-up interview.
[16:24] So we knew what the police told him.
[00:00] In essence, they he told the
[16:28] Police that those keys were not made at his store.
[16:31] So, we were wondering why this rumor was going around that the keys that were found at the murder scene were made at his store.
[16:41] So, James Fox went and talked to him.
[16:44] And this is exactly what he said.
[16:46] He said that the keys that Eric Kapowski had made were of a very common and generic type such as a sledge or a quick set key as he does not recall anything unusual about the key.
[16:59] So, one of the keys I think had do not duplicate on it and the other one was a big house key.
[17:06] Now, thank goodness the arresting officer that pulled me in on my traffic warrant in December took a picture of all of my keys.
[17:14] So, if you look at that picture up in the upper left-hand corner, there's an ACE key.
[17:19] And the ACE key has a black ring around it.
[17:22] And that key I remember specifically was for a new apartment contract that I got in Lake Elsinore.
[17:28] The contract began in
[17:32] On the third day of December 1994.
[17:36] So I would be having to make a key for that contract right at the same exact time that Vanir tells Box or tells the investigators that I made those keys.
[17:47] He said that he cannot recall the dates that Eric Kapowski had keys made, but it was between several days after the close of the Tustin Tiller days, which was 109, and several days prior to the police interview on 1218.
[18:02] So, the police interviewed on 1218.
[18:05] He said, "I had keys made before that.
[18:08] I have an apartment complex coming online in December."
[18:11] So, that makes perfect sense of why I made that key and why that particular key has a black ring around it.
[18:18] And you can see it in the photo.
[18:20] So, there's no doubt of what kind of keys I made and why I made those keys.
[18:23] Did you know this store manager?
[18:26] Did you have a just a casual business hello goodbye relationship with him?
[18:32] This is what he said in his uh in his
[18:35] Document to James Fox.
[18:37] He said that he met Eric Neposki shortly before the Tustin Tiller days when Eric Nepaski had applied for the security position for that event.
[18:46] He interviewed the applicants that he recommended Neposki for the security position for the event and the event staff who hired Eric Neposki for that event that Eric Deoski had did a fine job with security for the Tustin Tiller days events.
[18:59] So yeah, we knew each other and we knew each other on a business relationship and I thought I had a good relationship with him and then all of a sudden he has cops in his face asking them if I made the keys that were used to access Boomer's house in a murder, right?
[19:16] And [clears throat] he tells him pretty straight up that one key out of the two keys he could not have made.
[19:21] One key was actually made at a different store and it was called Ace Key located in Costa Mesa.
[19:29] So one key was eliminated right away.
[19:32] The other key, however, he did have the blanks for.
[19:35] Those keys, but here's the key on that.
[19:37] The key on the key, that's great word play.
[19:39] The key on the key is this.
[19:42] The blanks that he uses of that particular key have Tustin hardware stamped on the back of them.
[19:50] So when the police brought him the key from the murder scene, it did not have Tustin hardware stamped on it.
[19:58] So the fact of the matter, the key that was used in the crime was probably not used at his store because it didn't have Tustin hardware printed on the back of it.
[20:06] So he basically cleared both keys.
[20:09] Now here's the problem.
[20:09] That was in February of 1995.
[20:13] Now all of a sudden I see this guy on the stand and I'm wondering why could he possibly be there if he already said both keys could not have been made at his store.
[20:24] Right?
[20:28] So he's saying now 17 years later that due to the specific cuts of the keys that he feels they
[20:35] couldn't they could have been made at
[20:36] his store which to me seemed like a real
[20:40] reach since he probably made about
[20:41] 40,000 keys over the period of time that
[20:43] we're talking about and he's remembering
[20:46] the certain cuts on a basic sledge key
[20:49] uh that he probably made you know
[20:50] thousands of the same one. So that that
[20:54] was surprising and uh I think my
[20:57] attorneys were surprised to hear it as
[20:58] well.
[20:59] So this guy 17 years later says that he
[21:05] remembers the cuts of the key. Somebody
[21:09] who makes keys on a daily basis for the
[21:13] past 15 plus years specifically
[21:16] remembers the cuts on those two keys.
[21:20] That's basically what Matt Murphy was
[21:23] resting his case on for this particular
[21:26] person. The the fact that I'm going to
[21:29] bring in the store manager of Ace and
[21:31] he's going to testify that he remembers
[21:32] cutting these keys for Eric. Again, I go
[21:36] back to what is Matt Murphy doing
[21:39] putting this guy on the stand yet he's
[21:41] relying solely on the testimony of a
[21:45] manager who makes keys for a living on a
[21:48] daily basis. 15 years later that he
[21:51] remembers the sharp cuts on these keys.
[21:54] Is that what you're telling me?
[21:55] Unfortunately, I think Matt Murphy was
[21:57] really desperate for any any evidence
[22:00] that he could find that may tie me to
[22:03] this crime because he had zero. He had
[22:05] no physical evidence. He had no
[22:06] witnesses. We've been through this whole
[22:08] thing uh for four podcasts and now we're
[22:11] talking about people that are slandering
[22:12] themselves on the stand. This is what he
[22:15] said. You know what? This key was
[22:18] probably at my store. Made at my store
[22:20] because I'm recognizing the sharp cuts
[22:23] on this key. Is that what you told them?
[22:26] I believe I did.
[22:28] And which detective was he telling this
[22:30] to?
[22:32] Well, I'm going to finish that part of
[22:34] the transcript for you. So, after
[22:36] telling them he noticed the sharp cuts
[22:38] might have been made at his store and he
[22:40] said, "I believe I did." The question
[22:42] from my attorney was, "You did?" He
[22:45] goes, "I believe I did. Do you recall
[22:47] who that officer was? Meaning the
[22:49] detective. He believe I believe the
[22:52] investigator sitting in the front row
[22:53] right there. And the question is
[22:56] detective Vos. I believe so. Yes. So
[23:00] hold on a second. We have two people
[23:04] giving different statements than they
[23:06] gave years ago, but we have the same
[23:10] detective taking the statements. Is it
[23:13] starting to become a pattern that the
[23:16] detective taking the statement, maybe
[23:19] pointing the statement in a different
[23:21] direction?
[23:24] Was Matt Murphy awake during this or did
[23:28] he run out and grab a snack?
[23:30] [sighs and gasps]
[23:31] No. And and like I told you, when Matt
[23:34] doesn't get his way, he starts acting up
[23:37] in the courtroom. And this was starting
[23:40] to get on his nerves. and uh he set
[23:44] forth quite a lot of um objections in
[23:48] this in this area. And
[23:52] you know, my my attorney Angelo McDonald
[23:54] is from New York and he's a pretty
[23:56] hard-hitting cross-examiner.
[23:59] And uh what became friendly in the
[24:01] beginning became really unfriendly at
[24:03] the end. It actually became a battle
[24:05] between McDonald and Murphy and they
[24:07] just kept going back and forth. And even
[24:09] a judge said at one point, he said, "My,
[24:11] we've had a change. We've had a change
[24:14] of demeanor here, you know, and everyone
[24:16] noticed it in the courtroom." But let me
[24:18] let me give you on how this testimony
[24:20] ended.
[24:21] At some point at the end, my attorney
[24:25] asked this question now. Are you able to
[24:28] testify to this good jury right here,
[24:31] right now, that that key you have in
[24:34] your possession was made at your shop?
[24:36] Yes or no?
[24:38] No was the answer. It was definitive.
[24:42] Like when Angelo asked Detective Wolf if
[24:46] he checked every lead right in the case,
[24:50] what did he say?
[24:52] No.
[24:54] Exactly. Now the same thing with this
[24:56] guy. Can you tell me this key was made
[24:58] at your store or not? No, I cannot. So
[25:00] what is he doing on the stand? That's
[25:02] the question. And you know, yeah, it
[25:06] will make you wonder all day long that
[25:08] these two witnesses, were they my
[25:10] witness or were they the prosecution's
[25:12] witness?
[25:14] I'm blown away, honestly, because
[25:18] what Matt did was frame this entire case
[25:22] on new evidence. Was the new evidence
[25:24] that he claimed from the beginning, was
[25:26] it strictly just Susan or was it Susan
[25:29] and the store manager combined with some
[25:32] other things? Do you recall exactly what
[25:35] Matt I don't mean to veer off the topic
[25:37] right now. Do you recall what he said
[25:39] was his new evidence, what he claimed
[25:41] was new evidence to the judge?
[25:44] I think he listed uh the hardware guy as
[25:48] casting doubt. I I think he listed
[25:51] Suzanne Koger as she's going to give
[25:53] some kind of monumental testimony
[25:55] regarding a confession, which it was far
[25:57] from as you learned by the I didn't do
[26:00] it is not a confession. It's just the
[26:01] opposite. And I think he mentioned
[26:03] something about Robert Catrrell who had
[26:06] a golf business that Nette was planning
[26:08] to invest in in the new year, trying to
[26:12] tie that in that she needed to do the
[26:14] murder before she had the money to
[26:15] invest in the golf business. I think
[26:17] those are his three big pieces of
[26:19] evidence. And I think it's just
[26:21] ridiculous when you put that evidence
[26:24] against my loss of my phone records,
[26:26] right? You compare new evidence verse
[26:29] prejudice that I've incurred over
[26:31] 17-year delay. That trial again should
[26:34] have never went down or it should have
[26:37] been reversed afterwards because I was
[26:39] severely damaged by the loss of my phone
[26:42] records. They were not uh given any
[26:45] benefit from these new witnesses because
[26:47] they weren't new witnesses. They were
[26:48] the same witnesses that gave statements
[26:51] um back in 1995 and 1998, but now there
[26:54] was allegedly new statements, but the
[26:56] new statements turned out to be nothing.
[26:58] Nothing that put Eric Gaposki at 67
[27:01] Baloa co on the night of the murder,
[27:04] right? Nothing. No evidence whatsoever.
[27:06] And there never will be any evidence.
[27:09] Okay. So, so far
[27:12] his two star witnesses, and I'm going to
[27:15] just label them star witnesses because
[27:17] that could go either way. Star witnesses
[27:20] that Matt Murphy claims are bringing new
[27:22] evidence to a case. And obviously, he
[27:25] needed to convince a judge that there
[27:27] was new evidence in order to bring this
[27:29] new case. So, star witnesses for Matt
[27:32] Murphy, but mind you, like we were just
[27:34] like you just alluded to, possibly star
[27:36] witnesses for you because [snorts]
[27:39] you were a your attorneys were able to
[27:41] disprove
[27:43] Susan's statements
[27:46] and the Ace Hardware Manager store
[27:48] statements.
[27:50] So, so far Murphy is 0 for two on his
[27:55] star witnesses and their statements.
[27:58] Please tell me that Murphy did a little
[28:01] better with Vaughoth on the stand.
[28:04] Uh, I can't really say that. I can't say
[28:06] he did any better with detective Vaoth
[28:09] on the stand because he was on the stand
[28:11] for 15 hours.
[28:13] 15
[28:14] being cross. Yeah. 15 hours. And they
[28:17] basically had to ask Angelo McDonald to
[28:20] stop asking questions because it was
[28:22] just getting ridiculous, right? They
[28:24] basically came to an agreement that
[28:25] we're going to let this guy off the
[28:27] stand right now because it's just too
[28:29] much. But as as I said, Detective Roth
[28:33] interviewed both of those people. He
[28:36] interviewed a Kogar and he interviewed
[28:39] uh the hardware store guy, Vanir. So
[28:41] he's involved in all of this stuff. So
[28:44] when I put three perjuries down, I met
[28:47] three people who perjured themselves on
[28:50] the stand during my trial. And this is
[28:53] what Detective Wa did. Detective Wa in
[28:56] the preliminary hearing, right?
[29:00] He was asked if he ever saw the letter
[29:02] from Julian Bailey to Debbie Lloyd
[29:05] because, as you know, in the letter,
[29:07] Julian Bailey explains that I couldn't
[29:08] have done the crime because of a phone
[29:10] call I made. He denied at the prelim of
[29:13] ever seeing that letter.
[29:16] So, he didn't have to admit that he knew
[29:19] about the phone call, right? because if
[29:20] he didn't know about the phone call from
[29:22] back then, then he he wouldn't be
[29:24] suspect to not getting the phone
[29:26] records. So, this was a denial
[29:29] situation. And I'm going to back up just
[29:31] one quick second. Remember, 18 months, I
[29:34] didn't have any documents, right? I
[29:36] didn't have I didn't have the the box
[29:38] memos. I didn't have the interview with
[29:40] the with the key guy. So, all this
[29:42] innuendo and allegations were floating
[29:44] around, right? They were in the media.
[29:45] They were on television. And I kept
[29:47] saying, "This is all bull. This is all
[29:49] bull. This is none of this is right. We
[29:51] already corrected this and nobody was
[29:52] listening to me. One point we went to
[29:56] court and Matt Murphy was standing close
[29:59] to Gary Pollson. And I asked Gary, I
[30:02] said, "Gary, ask Matt if he has a letter
[30:05] from Julian Bailey to Debbie Lloyd back
[30:08] from 1995." I'm pretty sure we sent her
[30:10] one. So he asked Matt, "Hey Matt, do you
[30:13] have a letter that Bailey wrote Debbie
[30:15] Lloyd back in uh the springtime of '95?"
[30:19] And Matt Murphy says, "Yeah, I got the
[30:21] letter." And and Pulson says, "Well, can
[30:24] I have a copy of it?" He goes, "Sure,
[30:26] I'll get you one." Ask me how long it
[30:30] took to get the copy of the Julian
[30:32] Bailey letter after that day.
[30:34] How long?
[30:37] Six weeks. Six weeks
[30:40] to send over a three-page letter. And do
[30:43] you know why it took six weeks? because
[30:45] we had the preliminary hearing coming
[30:47] up. Remember, I don't have any documents
[30:50] at the prelim, but now I have the
[30:53] letter. So, at the preliminary hearing,
[30:56] Detective Vaugh says that he's never
[30:59] seen that letter. And the judge asked
[31:01] him, "Well, why don't you read it now?"
[31:02] So, he takes it and he reads it. He
[31:04] goes, "Yep, never seen it before." At
[31:07] trial, the judge asked him if he's ever
[31:11] seen the letter and this is what he
[31:13] says. I don't believe I saw that letter
[31:16] until recently. Recently being in the
[31:20] last few years when this became dot dot
[31:23] dot before the prelim. Hold on a second.
[31:27] We were just at the prelim and you said
[31:29] you never saw the letter and at the
[31:32] trial you say before the prelim. And
[31:35] then the judge asked him, "Were you ever
[31:37] informed of the contents before your
[31:40] retirement?"
[31:42] He says, "I know I got a couple letters
[31:44] from different attorneys. Contact my
[31:46] client." Blah, blah, blah. He starts
[31:48] backtracking.
[31:49] He doesn't remember the Julian Bailey
[31:51] letter.
[31:53] So now he's he plays it off. He says,
[31:56] "Not me. I think in the letter once I
[31:59] read it prior to the prelim," he says
[32:01] again, "Prior to the prelim, it was
[32:03] Bington or somebody else that might have
[32:06] gotten that letter." Okay. So, at this
[32:10] point in time, at the preliminary
[32:12] hearing, he has never seen the letter.
[32:14] Right now, at the trial, he says he saw
[32:16] it before the the prelim and he said
[32:20] that twice, but now he pawns it off on
[32:23] Detective Bington. Well, if you know
[32:26] Detective Bington saw the letter, then
[32:28] you knew there was a letter, right? So,
[32:31] he's really just stomping on himself.
[32:34] And he also claimed that prelim that he
[32:36] never saw my phone records which he
[32:39] claimed at trial as well. Right? So he
[32:42] didn't see the phone records and he
[32:44] didn't see the letter from Julian Bailey
[32:48] and the judge picks up on this and he
[32:52] says, "What caused you to go out to
[32:54] Denny's to check the telephone?"
[32:58] Right? So, if you haven't seen the phone
[33:00] records and you haven't seen the letter,
[33:04] how could you go and check the phone
[33:05] records?
[33:06] Right.
[33:07] I'm going to give you his answer.
[33:09] That's still kind of a blur to me. I
[33:13] remember I don't know what we went to
[33:15] check on the telephone. We might have
[33:17] been just going there to look at the
[33:19] Denny's, but I have a fairly fuzzy
[33:22] memory of parking on that side near the
[33:25] freeway and there was a door on that
[33:27] side. And the court says, "You don't
[33:29] even recall if you went out there to
[33:31] check on the telephone." And then
[33:33] Detective Voss says, "Could have been
[33:36] another crime or something?"
[33:39] He did.
[33:39] Okay. So, there's Yeah, I He did. He
[33:42] said it might have been another crime.
[33:44] First, he said it was a blur and then he
[33:46] said it might have been another crime.
[33:47] Well, name me one crime that occurred in
[33:49] Newport Beach
[33:51] that involved the Dennis
[33:54] in Tustin, California. Name me one.
[33:57] Listen, I don't like to call anyone a
[33:59] liar. I don't like to say anybody purges
[34:02] themselves, but this is about the
[34:04] clearest perjury you could find. This is
[34:07] the Mark Furman of the OJ case in my
[34:10] case.
[34:12] This is this is almost hard to believe
[34:15] what I'm hearing. Tell me how the judge
[34:19] ended up questioning Vaoth about this.
[34:23] Well, usually the judge is not a defense
[34:26] attorney. Usually they don't
[34:27] cross-examine detectives. But during the
[34:30] trial originally, Detective Va uh
[34:33] testified that he never went to Denny's,
[34:36] that he never checked the phones at
[34:37] Denny's, that he never did any of that
[34:39] stuff because again, never saw my phone
[34:41] records, right? I didn't give them to
[34:44] him. Remember the quote? He never gave
[34:46] them to us, right? Well, I offered it. I
[34:49] said, "How about we go look at them
[34:50] right now so you guys could leave me
[34:52] alone." I offered it during the
[34:54] conversation and I told him about the
[34:56] call during the conversation. So, he was
[35:00] denying knowing about the phone call so
[35:02] he didn't have to admit that that was
[35:04] the reason they let me go in 95. He
[35:07] could not admit that because that
[35:09] destroyed Murphy's case. So you could
[35:11] imagine Matt Murphy telling Vos,
[35:13] "Whatever you do, don't admit to knowing
[35:15] about the phone call because it ruins
[35:17] our whole game plan of never never
[35:20] seeing the records of never verifying
[35:22] the alibi." Right? Who was the guy who's
[35:24] the only guy who verified the alibi?
[35:26] Every component.
[35:27] Box.
[35:28] Box the investigator. We have all those
[35:30] memos. So we know who it is. So their
[35:32] game plan was don't admit to verifying
[35:35] the alibi and we're good to go. Then we
[35:37] can say it never existed because we
[35:39] never saw it. So during the testimony, I
[35:43] told you 15 hours, he probably got a
[35:46] little tired and a little crossed
[35:48] because Angelo Macdonald tripped him up
[35:52] and he ended up mentioning that he did
[35:54] go to Denny's. As soon as he mentioned
[35:57] that he did go to Denny's, the judge
[35:59] realized that that was a conflict of
[36:01] answer between his whole statement of
[36:04] never going to Denny's. That's when the
[36:06] judge asked the jury to leave, go in the
[36:10] back, and he asked Detective Roth to
[36:13] take the stand, and he had some
[36:16] questions. He dismissed the jury.
[36:20] He dismissed the jury and asked Vaugh to
[36:24] take the stand.
[36:26] I I've said it I've said this before
[36:30] and I'll say it again.
[36:34] There wasn't this much reasonable doubt
[36:38] in your case. There was a mountain of
[36:42] reasonable doubt in your case.
[36:45] I get so frustrated
[36:49] and to be honest with you, quite angry
[36:53] when a jury
[36:56] doesn't do their job. And I'm sorry, I
[36:59] don't want to give the jury a pass on
[37:01] this because they didn't do their job.
[37:05] They needed reasonable doubt. And we're
[37:10] in we're in our fifth episode of this
[37:13] series and we've done nothing but
[37:16] present reasonable doubt with
[37:19] documentation.
[37:20] Albeit documentation you weren't allowed
[37:23] to show, but
[37:26] you had the word of a sitting superior
[37:30] court judge, a respected detective.
[37:34] I mean, you didn't you weren't up there
[37:36] with a public defender.
[37:39] You were up there with really good
[37:42] attorneys that probably weren't cheap
[37:45] either.
[37:47] I just don't understand how it's even
[37:50] remotely possible
[37:53] that Murphy can construct this story
[37:58] against everything that your team did to
[38:01] disprove his theory and yet they still
[38:04] found you guilty. I mean, wasn't the
[38:08] instruction by the judge at the
[38:10] beginning of the trial that it is not
[38:12] your job, the defense's job to prove
[38:16] that you didn't do this? It is the job
[38:19] of the prosecution to prove that you
[38:21] did. And all they had was Matt Murphy's
[38:25] story and the testimony of three people
[38:28] who took the stand and purged
[38:30] themselves.
[38:35] Help me here. All three all three
[38:38] people, two of them were interviewed by
[38:40] the person who purged himself after
[38:42] that. So you have to wonder if he was
[38:46] doing the interviews and trying to aim
[38:48] the interview in a way that would hurt
[38:49] me, then he's already skewing, right, or
[38:53] being biased as an investigator.
[38:56] Well, the first thing Neposki said was,
[38:59] "He didn't do it." Well, we're not gonna
[39:00] say that. We're gonna say that he said
[39:02] maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That
[39:05] sounds better. But how do you leave out
[39:07] the fact that that's what I said, right?
[39:09] The key guy. Well, he said he could have
[39:11] made the keys there. No, he didn't. He
[39:13] said he couldn't make one key there for
[39:14] sure and the other one didn't have his
[39:16] stamp on it. So, that probably does away
[39:18] with the other one, right? And if I was
[39:21] going to commit a murder and leave the
[39:22] keys there or use the keys, would I go
[39:24] to the the hardware store that I'm
[39:28] running security for at the Tustin
[39:30] Tiller days? Let me tell you what I had
[39:32] going on in December of that year. Just
[39:35] to give you an idea when because Murphy
[39:37] loves to say uh he was just a bouncer.
[39:39] This is what I had going on. I had the
[39:41] Tustin Tiller days. I had a wedding at
[39:43] the Builmore Hotel for my bodyguard
[39:45] client. That was a $150,000 wedding to
[39:48] run. I had 40 security people. I had a
[39:52] brand new club opening up in Newport
[39:53] Beach called the Thunderbird. And I had
[39:56] an apartment complex in Lake Elsenor. I
[39:59] mean, you just don't get any busier than
[40:00] that, right? And somewhere within that
[40:03] whole thing, I decided after a soccer
[40:06] game to drive from Walnut at hypers
[40:09] speed to get and kill a guy after I kind
[40:12] of realized that story didn't even make
[40:15] sense anyway. And I told the girl that I
[40:18] was in the hot tub with that we kind of
[40:19] broke up anyway because I can't have the
[40:21] guy living there who is also sexually
[40:23] assaulting her. So, she's actually my
[40:26] witness. The key guy, he's my witness.
[40:29] Detective Vos, he should have never been
[40:31] allowed to continue. Here was my feeling
[40:33] at the end of that statement. When he
[40:36] said it was just a blur, I wanted to
[40:38] stand up and scream at the whole
[40:42] courtroom. This whole effing case is a
[40:45] blur. You got people up here that don't
[40:47] remember what they said. You have a
[40:49] detective that just lies straight on the
[40:51] He lied. Listen, he lied at the prelim,
[40:54] right? or he lied at the trial. Both
[40:57] things couldn't be true. So, he lied at
[41:00] one or the other. And I'm not gonna I'm
[41:01] not going to get into which one I think
[41:03] it is. I think he's just a liar. So,
[41:05] when he tells you he never went to
[41:07] Denny's to check the phone, he never saw
[41:09] my phone record before he let me go. If
[41:12] he was Pinocchio, they would have had to
[41:14] open the doors of the courtroom because
[41:17] his freaking nose would have been out
[41:18] the freaking entrance of the courtroom.
[41:21] So after 17 years of being called a
[41:23] liar, after being 17 years of called a
[41:26] murderer, right? After 17 years of
[41:28] being, oh, he has such a bad temper and
[41:30] they don't have any time I've ever lost
[41:32] my temper that they can prove in a court
[41:34] of law at all. Not one witness came up.
[41:36] Yeah, I saw Eric lose it. He went that
[41:38] [ __ ] crazy. Never. Right.
[41:41] I'm the one in prison and they're the
[41:43] ones walking around doing interviews
[41:46] with the person that hired to kill
[41:49] Mlofflin and they don't even want to go
[41:51] there because they don't want to admit
[41:53] that they're wrong and you Paul have
[41:56] given me the opportunity to share this
[41:58] information. I'm not sharing my own
[42:00] opinion here. I'm sharing court
[42:03] transcripts. I'm sharing memos that box
[42:06] produced. We we made a promise to
[42:09] oursel. Tell the viewers what the
[42:10] promise to oursel was when we started
[42:12] this podcast.
[42:14] That we would only only talk about
[42:17] things that we could prove and had
[42:19] documentation for that this podcast
[42:22] would not turn into um tabloid TV. I'm
[42:26] not interested in that. Eric, you've
[42:27] known me a long time. I've been in this
[42:29] business a very long time as an
[42:31] independent producer. I do have a little
[42:34] reputation. I'm not a big, you know, I'm
[42:36] not a humongous producer, big Hollywood
[42:38] type, but the projects that I do take
[42:40] on, I take on with a lot of integrity,
[42:43] and I will not engage in a bunch of he
[42:46] said, she said. And I told you, Eric, if
[42:48] we do this, we have to be able to prove
[42:51] what we're saying. And it's very
[42:53] important that everything that we show
[42:56] the viewer, they understand fully. If
[42:59] some stuff that we're doing may seem a
[43:01] little redundant or monotonous, it's
[43:03] because it's so important. This is your
[43:06] second trial. This is your appeal that
[43:08] you were denied. This is the chance that
[43:11] you have
[43:13] to be your own attorney to represent
[43:16] yourself and show the world what should
[43:19] have been shown back at trial in 2009
[43:24] or 11, excuse me, by the time you got to
[43:26] trial. And that's another thing that
[43:27] pisses me off. Okay. How long it took?
[43:31] 25 months it took for you to get to
[43:34] trial. 25 months. In what world is that
[43:38] due process and a right to a speedy
[43:40] trial?
[43:42] This is absolute. And I'm quote I'm
[43:45] going to quote you. Can I quote you,
[43:46] Eric? This is [ __ ]
[43:50] Yes, it is. And I asked numerous times.
[43:54] We'll talk about that on the next
[43:55] podcast cuz I have the I have the
[43:57] transcripts of me asking the judge, why
[44:00] can't I seem to go to trial here? I'm
[44:02] have a right to a speedy trial. You
[44:04] already waited 15 years to arrest me.
[44:06] Now you're going to wait two more years
[44:07] to put me in a trial. This is
[44:08] ridiculous. This is being punished,
[44:10] right, for a crime I didn't even do
[44:12] beforehand. This is being kept in a cell
[44:14] for 22 hours a day while I await my day
[44:18] in court. And this is the thing I want
[44:20] to point out about the whole process.
[44:22] the whole process. I said it last time,
[44:25] justice means just us. No, they put you
[44:28] at a severe handicap. I didn't get bail.
[44:31] I didn't get a speedy trial. I couldn't
[44:33] look for my own phone records that might
[44:35] have been who knows where they might
[44:36] have been. I couldn't do any of that.
[44:38] All I had to do is sit there and listen
[44:40] to uh Matt Murphy talk about this new
[44:43] evidence, this key evidence, the Susan
[44:46] Kra evidence. Let me ask you, have you
[44:49] seen any evidence so far that couldn't
[44:52] be explained by a document that I have
[44:54] in my possession?
[44:56] Not.
[44:56] So, why isn't a detective from Newport
[44:59] Beach Homicide up here at my prison
[45:01] interviewing me and looking at this
[45:03] stuff? Why? Because they're covering it
[45:07] up and they always will. They will be
[45:09] the last person to admit. I don't like
[45:11] calling DA's office corrupt and I won't
[45:13] because the DA's office is not corrupt.
[45:15] It's certain people within the confines
[45:18] of the district attorney's office who
[45:20] are corrupt. And those people like
[45:22] Detective Off and Matt Murphy, they need
[45:24] to be brought to the forefront. And I
[45:26] hope this show brings questions and
[45:28] they're in Todd Spitzer's office
[45:30] sometime in the near future going, "Hey,
[45:33] what's going on here?" I have spoken to
[45:36] people who have worked in the DA's
[45:38] office and who were in the DA's office
[45:41] at the time of your trial under Tony
[45:43] Recus
[45:44] and I agree with you. I do not believe
[45:46] the DA's office is a corrupt office. I
[45:49] don't believe that and I'm glad you
[45:51] mentioned that because I think it's
[45:53] important that we make it very clear
[45:56] that we believe that there are certain
[45:58] individuals who had an agenda and it's
[46:01] hard to not believe that if you're
[46:03] listening to us, if you've if you've
[46:05] hung in there with us for five episodes
[46:07] now and looked very closely at
[46:10] everything that we have put on the
[46:12] screen and talked about, it would be
[46:15] very difficult for you to not draw any
[46:17] other conclusion.
[46:19] other than there was something really
[46:22] wrong with this case from the beginning.
[46:25] It should never have been brought to
[46:26] trial and certainly
[46:29] not 25 months after you were arrested in
[46:32] Connecticut, Eric. And I have talked to
[46:36] individuals who do believe you are
[46:39] innocent who were at the DA's office
[46:41] during your trial. I really pray that
[46:46] somebody who was around during that time
[46:50] in the office
[46:53] would come forward and at least talk to
[46:55] us. What really bothers me as much
[47:00] as that is the fact that we haven't
[47:02] talked about this yet and we're going to
[47:04] we're going to try to get into this next
[47:06] week and there's a reason we haven't
[47:07] talked about it yet. You filed a motion
[47:11] with the court to have DNA tested from
[47:15] the crime scene. Now, I know people are
[47:17] probably saying, "How could DNA not have
[47:19] already been tested uh on anything that
[47:23] was found at the crime scene?" Well,
[47:24] they it was okay. There were three
[47:27] things. There were the keys, of course,
[47:29] we already know. There were shell
[47:30] casings, and there was some fibers,
[47:33] material found at the scene. Those are
[47:35] three things that were
[47:38] found at the scene that were tested but
[47:40] became that were inconclusive because
[47:42] let's face it, technology 30 years ago
[47:45] and even during your trial back in 2011
[47:48] was not very sophisticated.
[47:50] DNA testing has become very
[47:52] sophisticated and you have made a motion
[47:55] to have these items retested.
[47:59] The court granted that motion
[48:02] and the court also granted you a defense
[48:05] attorney because you need one to have
[48:08] this DNA tested.
[48:12] This occurred more than 18 months ago
[48:17] and we are still waiting for your
[48:20] attorney to contact you.
[48:23] This is one more reason to believe
[48:28] that there is a cover up going on
[48:30] because what possible explanation is
[48:32] there
[48:33] for your attorney
[48:36] to not respond or reach out to you in 18
[48:40] months. We're going to get into that
[48:42] next week. Um, this is this is very
[48:46] bothersome to me and I know it's
[48:48] bothersome to you. So, anything that is
[48:51] uh is bothersome to me has to be
[48:53] amplified by a thousand in your case.
[48:57] So, we're going to leave it right there.
[48:59] So, do you have anything you'd like to
[49:01] say before we go for this week?
[49:04] Well, Paul, I was just looking over your
[49:06] shoulder there at the countdown of the
[49:08] years and days that I've been here and
[49:11] uh I see it now every time we do a show
[49:13] together and I just keep thinking, when
[49:16] are people going to catch on and when is
[49:17] that countdown going to finally stop?
[49:20] You know that just for the view for the
[49:22] viewer who doesn't know that is our
[49:23] website and that is a live counter. That
[49:26] counter started ticking from the moment
[49:29] that you were arrested, Eric, in
[49:31] Connecticut. It's been over 17 years. It
[49:34] shows how many days, how many minutes,
[49:36] how many seconds that you've been
[49:37] incarcerated. And it's not going to stop
[49:39] counting until justice does prevail. I
[49:44] also want people to know that this
[49:47] podcast needs your help. This podcast
[49:50] needs
[49:52] word of mouth. Um, I have sent
[49:56] Todd Spitzer an email with the link to
[49:58] this podcast. I'm hoping he hears this
[50:01] and I'm hoping he watches because I
[50:04] think that he needs to pay attention to
[50:08] something that happened not on his
[50:09] watch,
[50:11] but it is associated with the DA's
[50:13] office and I think we need to we need to
[50:16] write a wrong here and I think there's
[50:19] enough evidence that warrants a second
[50:22] look. Eric, thank you as always for your
[50:27] very clear explanations of everything.
[50:31] Thank you for being a great co-host. We
[50:33] couldn't do this without you. This
[50:35] podcast exists because of your ability
[50:39] to present a coherent
[50:42] case to the public. So, thank you my
[50:44] friend and uh we will talk again next
[50:48] week.
[50:49] Okay. Thanks, buddy. See you soon.
[50:51] Thank you. Thank you for watching this
[50:54] episode of Fumble Justice. As always, we
[50:56] welcome your questions and comments and
[50:58] encourage you to participate in the
[50:59] conversation. If you would like to ask
[51:01] Eric a question, please email us on our
[51:04] website and we will do our best to
[51:06] answer that question live on the
[51:08] following episode. For Eric Neposki, I'm
[51:11] Paul Delpo. We'll see you next time.